ChoxThe Navy is probably the UKs most secure defender.
Eh? An aircraft carrier is the biggest and most vulnerable target we could possibly have. Besides, why would you think sacrificing a fleet of Tornado GR4s and Harriers for a dozen operational F35s would make even the slightest sense? Trident doesn’t really come into it, that’s a separate issue entirely.
Of course then it makes sense to ignore the 7.5 billions saving possibly obtained by losing Tornado.
Most certainly. Tornado is an extremely valuable asset worth every penny. Bear in mind that the F35 would (when one excludes all the aviation magazine hype) be able to achieve nothing that cannot be achieved with Tornado and Typhoon. What possible sense could there be in writing-off the Tornado and Harrier fleet in order to have an aircraft which will be available in ridiculously small numbers (probably a dozen at best), be hideously complex, and has to be paid for (Tornado is already paid for)? There is no sense to it. It is politics, not sound defence thinking.
I can barely bring myself to imagine the claptrap that is going to be spewed-out this week in order to justify SDR. Hope everyone will bear in mind that whatever Fox says, it almost certainly will not be true. We’re going to be sold another absurd picture of Britain’s role in order to justify what will actually be nothing more than the results of an inter-service squabble… which the Navy appears to have won. The losers are the Taxpayers.
ChoxJonesy, as I said, the answers are already in my previous posts but as you evidently don’t care to re-read them, here goes:-
We WEREN’T able to avoid those conflicts and that there, without a carrier force, would have been nothing we could have done about them.
Simply not true. There isn’t a single incident which could be regarded as a necessity. They were conflicts of choice. We cannot afford to support anything which is not of direct defence significance (even though we’re evidently going to try it seems).
…the measure of Britain to the outsider is in how we match our actions to our rhetoric. If we abrogate our responsibilities on the basis of expedience we lose more than territory or dependents.
Eh? You’re not serious are you? This is 2010 and we are bankrupt. If that’s your policy then simply reign-in the rehtoric. It’s cheaper. And what “responsibilities”? We’re not “responsible” for anything other than the defence of our own country.
The Falklands showed the world that we were as good as our word that we would risk blood and national treasure to keep our promise.
Lovely. Worth buying two new carriers, equipping them, and operating them for another 40 years then? To claim that this justifies carrier is nonsense. It justifies more able politicians and civil servants, that’s all. Move-on, and accept that the Falklands is not an issue.
Afghanistan operation, for all its hacked-up errors in execution, is now carrying the credibility of the western world on its back
Good Lord I hope it isn’t, given how ridiculous we look. Having ignored the lessons of history and barged in, we’ve tied ourselves to America’s crusade which as we knew from the start, would be unwinnable not least because nobody even has a clue what winning would even mean. When we leave Afghanistan it will return to the same situation as before. It always does.
If we leave Afghanistan no better than the rats nest it was pre-2001 NATO comes out of it looking the busted flush, like the Soviets at the end of the 80’s, and the NATO powers lose so much of their credibility in the process. That directly impacts the influence we all have in global events.
Maybe it does. Maybe we will have to concentrate on our own defence instead of influencing world events? What makes you think that our intervention will end any differently to those in the past? The Taliban have already said repeatedly that they will simply wait and return. We are merely waiting until the politicians in the US can find a plausible excuse to leave which they think will convince us that it’s all been worthwhile. We all know this isn’t going to happen, but the farce just goes on and on while more people get killed.
This simple relationship scales down to nation-state level as well. If we lose the ability to participate in global events then we, very definitely, lose our say in them.
Yes. But are you suggesting financing two carriers (at the expense of any credible defence of the UK) is therefore worth it?
To lose that to save a few squadrons of Tornado’s is a greater absurdity. To lose that in the service of some Trenchardian concept of jeopardised home defence, especially in the face of an air threat to the UK which amounts to the hit/miss interception of a couple of Blackjacks every other week, is beyond absurdity.
Clearly, you have no understanding of Britain’s history then. That’s precisely the claptrap that Fox tried to sell us last week. It’s also precisely how we ended-up in World War Two.
I get the impression that your views have been moulded by romantic notions of what Britain’s position really is. We’re not a world player in any real sense, we are merely hanging-on to our past for as long as we can. We started to understand that we were punching above our weight when we withdrew from East of Suez, but even to this day our politicians still like to imagine that we are somehow a world power. We are not. We support America and America supports us – while it suits them. All of this can be gleaned from history. Likewise, it is no surprise that the Navy has bullied two successive governments into buying two huge carriers and aircraft to equip them, whilst fully aware that the purchase would cripple all of our other defence capabilities. That’s how the Navy is and always has been. Frankly, if you seriously imagine that we are getting these carriers because we need them, you’re deluding yourself. It’s about politics, as it always is.
ChoxYou’re on thin ice mentioning crystal balls. Fox claims that there is no threat to the United Kingdom on the horizon, so the powers of his crystal ball must be truly amazing.
As for the Falklands, we can’t go through history continually citing this one-off saga as a yard stick for the future. If we’re going to do that, we may as well throw-in every other one-off campaign. Carriers were important for the Falklands but that doesn’t justify obtaining or retaining them – it justifies a better defence policy for the Falklands. It’s a cop-out to keep using this event as justification for carriers.
As for my imaginary crystal ball, well one doesn’t need one. Far easier to extrapolate an estimation of our future needs by looking at the past. The last time we truly needed aircraft carriers was WWII.
And as for Trident, Challenger II, Tornado and Harrier, you might be better advised to pose that question next week after SDR. The review will doubtless confirm that (at least in Fox’s opinion) Tornado and Harrier are indeed not vital. But the carriers presumably are? Nope, they are a symptom of bungled Labour defence policy and continual political pressure from the Navy. Trident is a separate issue which has as much to do with foreign policy as it does with defence. Besides, Trident costs nothing, it is a replacement which costs money and that issue doesn’t need to be addressed for quite a long time.
ChoxI’ve explained the position so I’m not going to repeat myself. All of the subsequent points raised here have already been addressed in my comments so if anyone wants a serious answer (rather than entering into a point-scoring exercise), my responses can be found within my previous posts.
Only thing I would add is that the carrier advocates might be best advised to drag themselves away from television and news pundits, and the ramblings of aircraft enthusiast magazines. Take a look at Britain’s real military history and current posture and Britain’s lamentable financial situation. Also take note of the fact that almost every politician on both sides of the House accept that the new carriers were a bad idea.
ChoxSome points to clarify:-
I’m referring to British carrier power (as I think I said). The USA’s policies are a separate issue.
The Falklands did require a carrier but the conflict was a result of botched foreign policy. You can’t justify a carrier fleet on the basis that our politicians might be useless. If that was the case we’d been a dozen carriers at least. One could draw-up an almost endless list of potential conflicts which might require carriers. Likewise, one could draw-up other lists which require huge numbers of aircraft, or ships, or ground troops. Point is, one can pluck any scenario out of the air and justify the appropriate assets to deal with it. But it’s a floored concept which we can’t afford to pursue. As has been said by politicians frequently in recent months, one has to “cut one’s cloth” accordingly. Carriers do not defend the UK and they are therefore unnecessary.
Afghanistan is a red herring. It is a short term conflict of choice which will be over soon in any case. Obviously Britain could allocate carrier power to such a conflict if it had the assets (and inclination) but it doesn’t have to. It has nothing to do with the defence of the UK, as even our politicians are slowly accepting (note how the much-peddled notion that we’re somehow driving terrorists away seems to be slowly drifting into oblivion, where it dererves to be).
Meeting obligations to Nato? Such obligations are as long as a proverbial piece of string. If the obligations can’t be met, they are exchanged for those that can be. That’s happened continually throughout Nato’s history.
It’s like I said earlier, it’s fine to look back at all the instances when carriers have been useful, and imagine lots of future conflicts where they might be useful again. This is precisely the line which Fox is going to try and sell us this coming week. But they have never (at least since WWII) been vital to the defence of the UK and they will be no more vital in the future. They will be a luxury which we clearly couldn’t afford 40 years ago, and certainly can’t now. They are being pursued because our politicians want to strut on the world stage and because the Navy wants to justify its existence – as usual. All very nice but completely ridiculous for a country of our size. Britain has always punched above its weight and even now at the point of bankruptcy, we’re still doing it.
ChoxSierra Leone in 2000
Indeed, another example of carrier use. Point is, had we not had the carrier/s then, we simply wouldn’t have contributed the forces that we did. It had absolutely nothing to do with the defence of the UK therefore the carrers were (and are) an unnecessary luxury.
There seems to be this myth (particularly amongst enthusiasts) that carriers are somehow vital. They’ve never been vital since WWII. They’re a nice luxury for sure, but we couldn’t afford carriers in the 1960s. We certainly can’t now, and they don’t make the UK in any way safer than we would be without them. The only reason we’re evidently getting them again is because our politicians still want to strut on the world stage, and the Navy wants to continue justifying its existence. It’s as petty (and sad) as that.
ChoxWell Afghanistan 2001
Not a case which suggests that carriers are essential though? Apart from the point that Afghanistan is not a “war” as such and simply a foreign policy operation of choice, there’s no way that British carriers could be regarded as essential or even appropriate for that theatre.
Iraq 2003 the RAF were nearlly scuppered from taking part as NATO allies refused over flight permissions as did Saudi.
Again it doesn’t seem appropriate. I don’t recall FAA Sea Harriers contributing anything to either Iraq war.
Basically the Tornados are the result of Cold War compromise.
True, but it’s not as if there is any prospect of replacing them with anything more ambitious, so again, the carrier issue doesn’t come into it. A dozen F-35s or Hornets is, in effect nothing more than a token gesture which we can’t afford.
As to UK defence what are all these Typhoons doing?
One would assume that they’re doing what any air defence asset would do – remain ready and available to defend the UK mainland should the need ever arise. I take issue with the term “all” though… Realistically, we will be lucky to have maybe fifty serviceable and fully capable fighters. Tokenism seems to be the best description yet again. The specious notion that Typhoon can dual-role and therefore possibly replace Tornado ignores the corresponding (and drastic) reduction in numbers. Deliberately so I assume, in the case of SDR.
I doubt that we will see Harrier completely lost
I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire fleet is withdrawn next year. The only realistic hope of saving them is probably if the Navy succeeds in pushing the notion that they should be retained until they get their new toys.
ChoxThink what you like but I’m saying this from a wider perspective, based on history. Carrier power is unnecessary. It is something which Britain can not and should not afford. I’m certainly not the only person to think this and there are countless hugely qualified military commentators out there who will say precisely the same thing if you care to look. Some of the above comments sound like direct quotes from enthusiast magazines, they’re so divorced from reality. What “shooting war outside Europe”? The only “wars” which Britain is going to get into are those like Afghanistan, which are about foreign policy and support of US foreign policy. They are not about defending the United Kingdom (nobody bought the claptrap about driving terrorists out of Afghanistan for more than a minute). Britain simply cannot afford to engage in world-wide fights at random. We are (or soon will be) unable to adequately defend the British mainland, and yet we’re expected to believe that we will continue sailing the seas to pick fights with whatever country is on our political hit list? Come on, get real, the British Empire has been in its death throes for decades, and surely it is only the Navy that is brazen-enough to suggest that we’re still able to operate with that kind of mind set.
We should have got out of the carrier business for good back in the 1960s. It was only the Navy’s desperate eagerness to get “Through deck Cruisers” which kept us in the business, even if only as a token gesture. The way in which the Navy has sought to re-invent the “need” for large carriers is both laughable and shameful. There is no need for carriers at all. It’s easy to claim that they can be vital for this role or that role but this is not the issue – nor is it even true. Carriers might be vaguely useful occasionally but essential? Nope, not even nearly. Ultimately, Britain does not have any need to project carrier power, and hasn’t had (excluding the foreign policy disasters of 1982) since 1956. It might want to, but it doesn’t have to. More importantly we are incapable of doing so properly. Pouring vast sums of money into two carriers which will ultimately provide us with maybe a dozen operational fighter-bombers is utterly absurd. It’s over-priced gesture politics which will impress nobody, not even the US (and let’s be clear about this, any future overseas actions involving carriers would be about nothing more than supporting US foreign policy).
All very well for Hillary to start whining, but her country isn’t bankrupt. Pouring resources into carrier “power” is simply draining resources from every other aspect of Britain’s defence capability. Fox might claim that (in typical “ten year rule” mentality) there is no threat on the horizon, but he fails to accept that with Harriers gone, maybe half or all the Tornado fleet gone, maybe no Nimrods (or at best a couple available at any time), and a reduced Typhoon force (which was meagre in the first place), we are left with virtually nothing. All we have is an ability to continue our crusade in Afghanistan which – one way or another – will be over soon. Then what? We have a carrier to parade around the world, achieving no more than British carriers have achieved since World War Two. It is utter madness. Shameful and irresponsible madness in fact.
Choxas you seemingly are Old
Being “old” is sometimes useful. As Prince Charles keeps saying, learning the lessons of history is a vital skill.
History tells us that the reality of the current SDR is probably far more petty and ugly than most people imagine. Ultimately, there are two fundamental issues. One is Afghanistan and the other is the Navy’s obsessive eagerness for carriers and air power. Both issues are ultimately of no significance to Britain’s future defence needs, which ensures that the outcome of next week’s SDR will be a farce, no matter what decisions are made.
Afghanistan is a short-term crusade which Britain chooses to engage-in, as direct support of America. We all know it has nothing to do with defending the UK. All of next week’s sacrifices are ultimately being made in order to support the on-going mission in Afghanistan. Given that no politician has the guts to simply pull Britain out of that pointless and murderous theatre, our real defence assets will continue to be hacked-away in order to continue paying for our exploits over there until we finally bring our troops home and realise that, bereft of anything not related to Afghanistan, Britain is ill-equipped to defend itself any longer.
Meanwhile, the Navy continues to maintain its disproportionate political clout, almost as if Britain still ruled the waves. Even though our naval forces have little or no obvious use now, the Navy has managed to convince the Treasury that they should still have their shiny new toys, thus justifying the Navy’s continued status in some bizarre, illogical fashion. Not content with the glory of Trident, the Navy pushes for more and (it would seem) have succeeded. Brilliant. I trust that the Admirals will be suitably proud of themselves in some petty, childish way.
Huge (phenomenally huge) sums of money are to be soaked out of a meagre defence budget in order to pay for these ridiculous carriers and aircraft to fly from them, and for what? To ensure that we can showboat around the world with our formidable force of maybe 12-15 serviceable jets at best? This isn’t defence, it’s gesture politics which we simply can’t afford.
The RAF is evidently willing to abandon Harrier in order to save Typhoons and some (or all) of the Tornado fleet. This makes sense as the Harrier is a Cold War asset which ought to be sacrificed if it enables other aircraft to be saved. STOVL is a red herring. We don’t need that ability and arguably haven’t needed it for decades – if ever at all.
Fox might claim that we are still to acquire F-35 but it’s early days as yet. Make no mistake – if the Navy is eventually offered Super Hornet they would drop F-35 and all notions of STOVL like a hot potato. This has never been about true necessities. It has been about inter-service squabbling. It has always been thus.
In a “real” world, Fox would dump the carriers and their aircraft. He would save Nimrod (and order more), save Tornado, save Typhoon (all of them) and dump Harrier. But the issue is clouded by foreign policy and inter-service one-upmanship. None of this has anything to do with defence.
ChoxNot anti-Navy as such, just an honest appraisal of the way things really are. Carrier power (for the UK) has not been essential since 1982 and one could argue whether it was even necessary then (bailing-out bad foreign policy decisions is hardly a justification for keeping carriers). Prior to that, the last practical or necessary application of carrier air power was 1956 – and even that is a debatable saga.
Carriers are a luxury which Their Navyships obviously want, but are of little value to Britain’s defence needs. The ability to roam the globe and bring our formidable force of maybe 12-15 serviceable jets to bear on some unsuspecting country is hardly a credible asset. If some abstract notion of protecting oil-soaked territory is a serious future necessity, one modestly-equipped carrier isn’t going to help. The carriers are merely hideously over-priced tokenism which we patently can’t afford.
As of next week it seems clear that Britain will have only a meagre air defence force and an attack capability (excluding the disproportional clout of Trident) which is adequate for gesture politics (eg supporting America in Afghanistan, or wherever our beloved politicians choose to send our troops to be killed needlessly in future) but for seriously defending out country? Nope, those days are gone. Fox claims that he’s looked into his crystal ball and seen no serious threat towards the UK which (in his opinion) means that we can afford to abandon assets (presumably Harrier, some or all of the Tornado fleet and some of the Typhoon fleet) in order that we may spend what little amount of money is left on our crusade in Afghanistan.
Brilliant. A glorious self-fulfilling prophecy. But as I said previously, when we finally leave that poisonous saga behind, Britain will have nothing with which to seriously defend the UK should the need ever arise. We will be obliged to simply send our glorious carrier around the world to heroically maintain Britain’s presence in countries where we are either not welcome or better advised to avoid. That isn’t defence, it’s crude political showboating. Defence capability is already at a level where it might be judged to be of questionable value. As of next week it will be gone. What remains will have no serious credibility in terms of defending the United Kingdom. We really might as well dump the lot.
ChoxPresumably the F-35 will finally be abandoned even if it isn’t announced next week. The purchase of Super Hornets (as rumoured weeks ago) seems far more practical and a cheaper solution.
Harriers were the most likely victims of the SDR from the outset which is hardly surprising. No matter how revolutionary and versatile the Harrier was or is, it’s a relic of the Cold War. If there is nothing to equip the carriers then they can stay in storage until there is. It’s not as if they will be vital to Britain’s defence posture (and probably never will be). If only the Government had got the guts to stand-up to the Navy (for once in British history) and dump the pointless, hideously expensive white elephants right now.
Far more important is Tornado GR4, Typhoon and Nimrod MRA4. If any of these programmes are reduced (or chopped entirely) it would be a very serious issue. All very well to obsess about the absurd crusade in Afghanistan but when we finally pull-out of that pointless farce, what good will Britain’s armed forces be to fight anything or anywhere else? Surely this isn’t just another traditional act of governmental short-termism?
ChoxWe should know for certain soon.
My hunch (which I’ve stuck with for weeks now) is that Harrier will be abandoned, Tornado GR4 will be partially or completely abandoned and the Navy will get it’s unnecessary carriers but with Super Hornets rather than the F-35 (although they’ll doubtless fail to mention this next week). I suspect the Typhoon order will be “massaged” somehow too. Presumably, Fox will get to keep Nimrod MRA4 having made a fuss about it.
Everything else will probably be window dressing and ultimately of no great significance either way. Fox will no doubt obsess about Afghanistan, choosing to completely ignore Britain’s future status when we finally get out of that pointless crusade. This will doubtless mean an over-abundance of helicopter assets which will then be eligible for dumping in five or six years. Hercules isn’t going anywhere, the only question is whether the Airbus will be abandoned. It would seem far more sensible to simply order a few more C-17s. The tanker saga will doubtless drift on to an unhappy conclusion.
If the main loss is the Harrier fleet then the outcome isn’t too bad. Harrier is a useful asset but hardly vital. Ultimately it was a Cold War aircraft. If some or all of the Tornado GR4s are lost that’s not so good. If Typhoon’s are reduced that’s even worse. If Nimrod is dumped it will be a disaster.
And all because the Navy wants to keep their shiny (and pointless) new toys. ‘Twas always thus…
ChoxLabour government that killed the TSR.2 (queue chox and some wild counter claim)
Yes they did, but only because the previous (Conservative) government had carefully avoided what was an inevitable decision. That’s politics for you. Also worth bearing in mind that the RAF had also accepted that they no longer wanted TSR2 before it was cancelled – something that all the myth-fanatics always overlook.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/TSR-2-Britains-Lost-Strike-Aircraft/dp/1906537194
The situation with Nimrod MRA4 is slightly different in that the project isn’t spiralling out of cost control. In this instance the difficulty seems to be that it is an expensive programme which the RAF evidently is willing to abandon in order to protect other assets. The risk is that their willingness to bargain in this way will backfire, leaving them without Nimrod and without other assets too.
Anyone can see the utter folly of abandoning an aircraft with such great potential, but we’ve clearly reached a stage where short-termism is the only currency accepted within Whitehall. But who knows, maybe the Mighty Hunter will survive.
…and yes, agree that the MRA4 is as ugly as sin!:p
ChoxThe thought of a Top Gun sequel sounds fine in principle but I guess it depends on what aircraft are involved and how good the filming is. We all know the original was complete garbage but some of the flying sequences made it worth sitting-through time and time again. Without Tomcats and Skyhawks it’s not going to be much of a thrill (I mean, how many Hornets would you want to see?) so unless the flying and the filming is really cutting-edge stuff… think we might as well ignore it!
ChoxChox there was a BoB day in ’81 at Lindholme, although the airfield was closed as such
Really? I can’t remember any mention of that as I guess I would have gone for a look if I’d heard about it. I’m sure the show I went to was earlier – probably 78-79. Anyone know what aircraft took part?
Sign In
